S.H.A.Raza, J. - (1.) FEELING aggrieved against the order dated 26th May, 1987 passed by the opposite party no. 2 terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Junior Collection Clerk the petitioner has filed this writ petition mainly on the ground that although the order of termination indicates that her services were terminated in accordance with the Rules governing the conditions of the services of the petitioner but the same has been camouflaged into an order of dismissal and the same has been passed without giving any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Hence the same is vitiated The petitioner has averred that she is M. A. in Sociology from Avadh University and on 7-4-1986 was appointed as Junior Collection Clerk by the opposite party no. 3 and thereafter her appointment was approved by the opposite party no. 4. The said order indicates that her appointment was approved. The petitioner has averred that her appointment was not on adhoc or officiating basis and there was no stipulation to the effect that the services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated at any time with or without notice. Her work was found satisfactory and it was appreciated by her superiors and on 2-4-1987 the District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Faizabad issued a certificate to this effect. One Sri B. D. Misra, the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P. Gonda, who has been arrayed by name as opposite party no. 3. personally knew the uncle of the petitioner while he was working at Gonda as a Lecturer in a degree college. So long the said uncle remained in Gonda the opposite party no. 3's behaviour towards the petitioner was normal but as soon as he left Gonda to join his new assignment, opposite party no. 3 started taking undue advantage of the position, the opposite party no 3 tried to take liberties with the petitioner which she resented and disliked but she being a helpless lady all alone at Gonda, she could not openly take any step against the opposite party. no. 3. The opposite party no. 3 used to send hand-written notes to the petitioner through his Peon during working hours without signing the same deliberately with ulterior motives. The said notes, which have been annexed by the petitioner as annexures 5 to 11, indicate that the opposite party had asked the petitioner not to come to office any more otherwise he would direct not to allow her to sign. In another note he directed her not to come to the office. Her services were not terminated because people will say something otherwise. In another note it was mentioned that people say that he had some sort of relation with the petitioner as a result of which tension and trouble had started in his house. It was further mentioned that the petitioner should immediately quit, as he did not wish that the hand* which had passed order for her appointment may pass order for her removal. It was also' mentioned in one of the notes that it would be better if the petitioner resigns. It was also stated that people have started suspecting his relationship with the petitioner and asked her to meat him at Lucknow.
(2.) IT was further averred by the petitioner that being a married lady with two daughters and having good moral character, she never succumbed to the unbecoming immoral seductive overtures of the opposite party no. 3 as a result he become very much annoyed, biased, prejudiced as he had a perverted approach towards life he became vindictive and wanted to harm the petitioner while he found that the petitioner could not be made to fall to his malafide and perverted desire. The opposite party no. 3, Asstt. Registrar Co-operative Societies, Gonda thus in a malafide manner motivated with sheer vindictivness terminated the services of the petitioner. It was further averred that the order of termination was preceded by a chargesheet dated 29th April, 1987 containing five charges which related to non-submission of the Original High School Certificate, in subordination and indiscipline etc. On 22-5-1987 against the said charge-sheet the petitioner submitted a reply. But instead of holding an enquiry into the matter her services were terminated by the opposite party no. 2 who has been arrayed as opposite party no. 3. Opposite party no. 3 has filed his own counter-affidavit to rebut the allegations made in the writ petition. It has been averred in the counter-affidavit that the order of termination is a simple order of termination simpliciter which has been passed in accordance with the rules governing the conditions of the service of the petitioner. At the time of the appointment the petitioner mentioned her date of birth incorrectly and when she was directed to produce the Original High School Certificate in order to ascertain her date of birth she intentionally and deliberately failed to produce the same, but ultimately this fact was brought to the notice that the petitioner's correct date of birth was 11-9-1955 while the petitioner gave her date of birth when she applied to as 11-9-1956 and in this manner the petitioner had crossed the age limit of 30 years at the time of her applying. At the time of appointment she furnished an attested copy of the High School Certificate in which her date of birth was mentioned as 11-9-1956. The petitioner was in the habit of tempering the records and blackmailing the persons by giving wrong informations. In this connection, a photostat copy of the original certificate of High School was also filed as annexure-C3 to the counter-affidavit which indicate that her actual date of birth was 11th September, 1956. It was further averred that the petitioner's appointment was made under Cooperative Collection Dues Rules 1982 which were framed by the Registrar Co-operative Societies U. P. and these Rules have no statutory force. She was not a public servant and as such not entitled to the benefit of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It was further averred in the said counter- affidavit that the petitioner had no relation with her so called uncle but he used to come in connection with framing of some Society and used to see the opposite party no. 3. It has been further averred that the story told by the petitioner in the writ petition was simply to defame him and he never communicated any such notes to her. The conduct of the petitioner was suspicious, malafide and doubtful and she was in the habit of changing the tracks now and then as she had done before by preferring application mentioning false date of birth as well as filing false attested copy of the school certificate. In para 17 of the counter-affidavit it was alleged that the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that she obtained false attested copy of the High School Certificate by playing fraud and concealed her actual date of birth at the time when she applied for her appointment and her services were terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment order and the same was not done out of vindictiveness or malafide intention. A chargesheet was served upon her in which she did not deny that she was over age at the time when she applied for appointment. On 27-7-1987 the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit in which she stated that Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Faizabad region conducted an enquiry into the matter and submitted his report on 30th June, 1987. A perusal of this report which has been annexured by the petitioner to the said affidavit as annexure-S-1 indicates that opposite party ho. 3 was having good terms with the petitioner and was also having good terms with Dr. P. N. Tripathi the uncle of the petitioner. Opposite party no. 3 had been living with Sri Tripathi. At that time Sri Tripathi was a lecturer in Lai Bahadur Shastri Degree College. The petitioner had also been living in house of opposite party no. 3. The letter which the petitioner had enclosed along with her application form was written by the opposite party no. 3 himself which' he had admitted. Opposite party no 3 also admitted that the relations of his wife and the petitioner became strained. It was also mentioned that opposite party no. 3 must be knowing the correct date of birth of the petitioner as they had family relations.
(3.) ALTHOUGH the opposite party no 3 had denied that he had ever communicated to the petitioner the notes contained in annexures-5 to 10 but the petitioner reiterated the said averments in her rejoinder affidavit. The report of the Deputy Asstt. Registrar, Faizabad region addressed to Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P. dated 30th June, 1987 contained in annexures-1, indicate that opposite party no. 3 appointed the petitioner after knowing all the particulars regarding the date of birth etc., about the petitioner. It further revealed that he recommended that the petitioner be absorbed in service and relexation about her age may be granted by the Registrar.. It also reveals that the petitioner had intimate relations with the family of the petitioner. The question whether the petitioner had written notes contained in annexures 5 to 10 and sent the same to the petitioner, although it has been denied by the opposite party no. 3 needs to be probed for the reason that the conduct of the opposite party no. 3 cannot be said to be above board. The language has emanated from a perverted mind and such an officer does not deserve to hold an important position. We can not shut our eyes from the reality that a large number of ladies have started joining private and public services. While they are away from their houses it is the solemn duty of the employer to safeguard and protect their honour and dignity If the Officers start behaving in an indecent manner, with the lady employees, no father or husband will allow his daughter and wife respectively to seek employment in public offices. Articles t4 and 16 of the Constitution of India casts a duty upon an employer not to discriminate any person on the ground of sex. Making overtures, passing indecent remarks upon women employees are the most indecent acts which deserve to be deplored and officers, indulging into, such acts should be severely punished. We direct opposite party no. 1 to hold an enquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner in pare, 9A, 10, 12, 13 and 14 made by the petitioner in her writ petition. In case the allegations are proved exemplary punishment should be awarded against opposite party no 3 but in case the allegations are found baseless similar action, be taken against the petitioner. It has been admitted in the counter-affidavit that on 24-4-1987 a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner and on 22-5-1987 she submitted a reply against the said charge sheet and on 26-5-1987 the services of the petitioner were terminated. The sequence of the incident shows that the foundation of the order of termination was to get rid of the petitioner from the service. It has also been admitted in the counter-affidavit that the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that the petitioner obtained false attested copy of the High School Certificate and concealed her date of birth when she applied for appointment. Thus it is clear that the service of the petitioner were terminated as a measure of punishment. The order of removal has thus been camouflaged into an order of termination simpliciter.;